Disciplinary Inquiry Stands Vitiated If No Oral Evidence Is Led To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Quashes Punishment Against SDM Delay In Lodging FIR For Outraging Modesty Not Fatal; Victims Often Hesitate Due To Social Stigma: Bombay High Court Maintenance Under PWDV Act Must Be Awarded From Date Of Filing Application, Not Date Of Order: Calcutta High Court Plea Of Alibi Must Be Proved With Absolute Certainty By Accused; Prosecution Case Must Still Stand On Its Own Legs: Delhi High Court Freezing Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Amount Is Disproportionate, Violates Article 21: Gujarat High Court Catch-Up Rule Applies In Absence Of State Law On Consequential Seniority; General Category Candidates Regain Seniority Upon Promotion: Jharkhand High Court Relaxation Of Voting Disqualification For Members Of 'Federal' Co-operative Societies Applies To 'Apex' Societies Too: Karnataka High Court Absence Of Express Trust Not Decisive; Public Dedication Can Be Inferred From Conduct Of Parties & Long User: Kerala High Court Bhojshala Is A Temple Of Goddess Saraswati, 2003 Order Permitting Namaz Quashed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Petitioner Seeking LOC Quashing Suppressed Foreign Citizenship; Not Entitled To Relief Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Protection Of Forests Outweighs Private Rights Of Encroachers; Voter IDs, Aadhaar Don't Confer Right To Stay In Reserved Forest: Gauhati High Court Section 294-A IPC: Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Without Prior Written Consent From State Government Or District Magistrate: Orissa High Court Defective Affidavit Not A Ground To Reject Election Petition At Threshold; It Is A Curable Defect: Uttarakhand High Court Witness Cannot Be Confronted During Cross-Examination With Documents Executed By Third Parties Without Prior Production: Telangana High Court

ACCUSED RELEASED ON DEFAULT BAIL U/S 167(2) CR.P.C. CAN BE CANCELLED ON STRONG GROUNDS: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of bail granted on default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and paved the way for the cancellation of such bail on merits. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, emphasized that bail granted on default does not assume the same character as bail granted on merits under Sections 437(1) and (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Supreme court observed, "The release of the accused on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not on merits, but on the failure of the investigating agency in completing the investigation and filing the chargesheet within the stipulated time prescribed therein." It further clarified that every person released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is deemed to be released under Chapter XXXIII for procedural purposes only, and the bail order cannot be cancelled based solely on the filing of the chargesheet.

However, the court emphasized that once a chargesheet is filed and a strong case is made out from its contents, bail granted on default can be cancelled on merits. The court highlighted the need for special reasons and strong grounds to establish the commission of a non-bailable offense from the chargesheet. It referred to Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the relevant provisions for considering the cancellation of bail on merits.

The ruling struck a balance between protecting personal liberty and serving the interests of justice. It recognized that denying the courts the power to examine the merits of a case after an accused is released on default bail could lead to a situation where illegality and dishonesty are rewarded. The court held that the administration of justice required the courts to have the power to cancel bail and evaluate the gravity of the offense committed by the accused.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court's decision dismissing the application for cancellation of bail filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. The case was remitted to the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad for fresh consideration of the application on merits.

The judgment referred to several relevant legal provisions, including Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., as well as Sections 437(1), 437(2), 439(1), 437(5), and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. It also relied on previous cases such as Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, and Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, New Delhi.

This ruling by the Supreme Court provides clarity on the bail process and ensures that bail granted on default is subject to cancellation on merits, based on strong grounds established from the chargesheet. It sets a precedent for considering the interests of justice while balancing the rights of the accused and the need for a fair trial.

 

Date of Decision: January 16, 2023

The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation  vs Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy 

 

Latest Legal News